The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Because my guess is you're probably looking at the hot takes because what we just did going into those studies when they seemingly have a weird outcome, I can tell you almost any time, 99% of the time when I've seen a headline or a social media hottake on a study that I go, "That doesn't make sense." and then I go and read the actual study. 99 times out of 100 I walk out going, "Oh, okay. I see why they found what they found."
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.